REAL # ESTATE







BUILDERS





AND







NEW YORK, JULY 11, 1914





iiliiiii^^                                                                                                                                                       .....■■|

i        TO SIMPLIFY ADMINISTRATION OF LAWS        |







I                         Pertinent Suggestions Made by Well Known Architect, Tending

I                         to Eliminate Conflict   of Authority and Unnecessary Red Tape.

I                                                                                     By JULIUS FRANKE

the occupant or tenant. It makes the
owner responsible for certain conditions
dtie to the action of his tenaiit over
whom he has no control, particularly
on the question of keeping aisle space,
having doors unlocked, keeping place
free of rubbish, and last, but not least,
keeping the place in a sanitary condition.
Carelessness o£ Occupants.

From the agitation against our fire-
resistive buildings, one would imagine
they were the worst in the world, when,
in reality, there are none superior. On
the other hand, the carelessness of the
occupants, the way rubbish accumulates,
and the way goods are stored and man¬
ufactured, or the "house-keeping"_ is, I
believe, worse than in Europe. Given a
building with all possible means of exit,
lives will still be lost by fire, if the
"house-keeping"   is  not  proper.

The theory that "house-keeping" is of
more importance than the building con¬
struction is accepted by an association
of New England insurance companies,
who will not insure a factory unless they
are assured there will be proper ''house¬
keeping," and this theory on their part
is proving wonderfully successful in
keeping  down  their  fire  losses.    /

I particularly dwell upon this to il¬
lustrate the fact that the activities of
the Industrial Board, the Labor Depart¬
ment and the Tenement House Depart¬
ment should be in the matter of "house¬
keeping;" and the construction of the
building itself, which in comparison is
easy, can readily be taken care of by
the Bureau of Buildings. The Industrial
Board, the Labor Department and the
Tenement House Department will have
all they, can do if they only take care
of the "house-keeping."

Placing Responsibility.

To the Industrial Board and the Labor
Department should be assigned the ad-"
ministration of the laws which deals
with the conditions under which labor
may be employed, such as safeguards
about machinery to prevent accidents,
ventilation to take off poisonous gases,
dust, fire-drills, removal of waste and
cuttings, smoking in factories, keeping
the place clean, providing emergency
rooms, toilet and washing facilities,
hours of labor, overtime, and many other
matters  of this  kind.

The Tenement House Department
should relinquish the construction of tene¬
ment houses. This could be just as well
done by the Bureau of Buildings as it
has been in the past.

The exits of a factory should be pro¬
portioned to the number of occupants.
Why should we assume that those work¬
ing in a factory are more easily killed
by fire' than any other of the human
species? I believe that the Labor Law,
with few exceptions, in regard to new
buildings, is about right. The real
trouble is with old buildings. These
old buildings should be treated separate
and apart from the law for new build¬
ings. In dealing with old buildings it
must be borne in mind that new build¬
ings soon become old ones, and to "or¬
der" radical and expensive changes to
buildings  that  have been  built  in  good





THERE is much criticism at the pres¬
ent time with the workings of the
Labor Law as affecting the building in¬
dustry, as well as New York City real
estate. The criticism is due, first, to
conflict of authority and the unneces¬
sary cumbersomcness of administering
the law aft'ecting buildings, both old and
new; second, because of the numerous
"orders" and many inspections from dif¬
ferent departments; and, third, the ex¬
pense that property owners are being
put to in remodeling old buildings to
suit the new  Labor Law.

At the present time the Building Law
requires that all buildings of whatever
nature, erected in the Citv of New York,
must have plans filed in the Bureau of
Buildings and permits obtained. This
is a wise procedure. Past experience
teaches us too much care cannot be ex¬
ercised in the erection of buildings.
Many lives have been lost due to col¬
lapse from reckless construction, and
although there has lately been a meri¬
torious agitation for fire-prevention
measures, the danger from poor build¬
ing construction should not be lost sight
of.

Pertinent Suggestion.

There is no reason why the Bureau
of Buildings cannot take charge of the
proper construction of buildings to pre¬
vent the spread of fire, as well as of the
proper construction of buildings to pre¬
vent collapse. The bureau has all the
plans and records of old buildings, has
the experience, and is, therefore, more
qualified to take care of the fire-pre¬
vention subject as it affects buildings,
than any new department which would
require at least four or five years to
get the proper men and accumulate the
necessary experience to do what the
present bureau could more efficiently
and without additional expense, do; be¬
sides which, if other departments con¬
tinue to have parallel jurisdiction, such
as they have now, with the Bureau of
Buildings in the matter of plan and
construction, there is bound to be con¬
flict  of  authority.

Should one department have exclusive
charge of the construction of one class
of buildings, and another department
have exclusive charge of the construc¬
tion of another class of buildings, there
would be different standards of work¬
manship and materials. This would be
confusing and uneconomical. If. on the
other hand, the present system is modi¬
fied so that the Building Department
were to have exclusive charge of the
construction, that is workmanship and
materials only, and the Labor Depart¬
ment have charge of the planning of the
building and exits, the dealings with
these two departments on practically the
same subject would lead to same mis¬
understandings, conftision and dissatis¬
faction that now exist, and would be
, little or no relief from the present un¬
satisfactory conditions of affairs.
Simplifying System.
Even the nlans for tenement houses
must, at the present time, be approved
by  the  Bureau  of  Buildinps.     But  they





JULIUS   FRAXKE.

must be first filed and approved by the
Tenement House Department before the
Bureau of Buildings will consider them
and give a permit. There is no sane
reason for this. Whether a building be
a tenement house, a factory, a theater,
a lodging liouse, or any other kind of a
building, the law affecting plan and con¬
struction should be explicit, and the Bu¬
reau of Buildings could readily, and
without any additional expense, pass on
all  such  matters.

The present justifiable movement for
reform in factories originated from the
lamenta'ble catastrophe of the Triangle
Waist fire. The lesson taught by that
fire was not that the danger to the work¬
er was from the construction of the
building or its plan, but that it was from
what I will designate as "house-keep¬
ing," meaning the management and ar¬
rangement within the building itself.
This fire brought forth tremendous agi¬
tation, though it was afterwards dis¬
covered that the particular building itself
was not at fault; still the impulse of that
agitation has resulted in certain new
laws affecting new buildings, and made
necessary radical changes in old build¬
ings.

Too  Little "House-Keeping."

In the agitation following the Tri¬
angle Waist fire, undue prominence was
given to ])uilding construction to pre¬
vent fire, and too little to "house-keep¬
ing." Most of the lives lost in the fire
could have been saved. First, had the
doors been unlocked: second, more
would have been saved had the aisles
between the sewing machines been wider
and had there been more of them: third,
had there beeii some systematic clean¬
ing up of rubbish and proper storing of
the inflammable material as soon as it
came from the operators, still more
would have been saved; fourth, there
would have been no loss of life had
there been no carelessness due to smok¬
ing; and, fifth, and lastly, there would
have been no loss of life had there been
sprinklers.

The present Labor Law. as well as the
Tenement House Law, places too much
responsibility on the owner of the build¬
ing, and too little or no responsibility on